Saturday, October 11, 2014

The sensitivity of various experiments to fluctuations in space and
time. Horizontal axis is the log of apparatus size (or duration times
the speed of light), in meters; vertical axis is the log of the RMS fluctuation amplitude in the same units.

According to the director of the project, the Holometer should be capable of detecting fluctuations in the light of a single attometer, meeting or exceeding the sensitivity required to detect the smallest units in the universe called Planck units.[1][4] Fermilab states: "Everyone is familiar these days with the blurry and pixelated
images, or noisy sound transmission, associated with poor internet
bandwidth. The Holometer seeks to detect the equivalent blurriness or
noise in reality itself, associated with the ultimate frequency limit imposed by nature."[2]

***

How is holographic noise different from space-time foam?John Wheeler's vision of quantum space-time was a roiling foam of virtual black holes. It was based on extrapolation of quantum field theory to the Planck scale. The holographic view is that space-time is not quantized like other fields, but emerges from a quantum system with fewer degrees of freedom than field theory. If this is right, foam is not the right way to visualize the smallest scales See: Holometer: Frequently asked Questions

***

The AdS/CFT correspondence is often described as a "holographic duality"
because this relationship between the two theories is similar to the
relationship between a three-dimensional object and its image as a hologram.[23]
Although a hologram is two-dimensional, it encodes information about
all three dimensions of the object it represents. In the same way,
theories which are related by the AdS/CFT correspondence are conjectured
to be exactly equivalent, despite living in different numbers of dimensions.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

fancier way of saying that is that in general, it's okay to model the space around us using the Euclidean metric. But the Euclidean model stops working when gravity becomes strong, as we'll see later. The Euclidean model for space

The magic square of "Albrect Durer" located in my index on the right is fascinating from the point of view that such a symmetry can be derived from the view of moving in an abstract space.

Trying to understand the implication of what is happening in a stronger gravitational field is an abstract journey for me as well, while I hold "thoughts of lensing" in my mind as a accumulative effect of something that is happening naturally out in space.

The move to Lagrangian points out in space is also an accumulative effect of thinking in this abstract way.

I not only think of the "magnetic field as as an associative value for that abstractness," it is a geometry that is the same for me, as I try to unravel the energy valuation of points(KK Tower) of any location in space. While the valuation of a circle on a 2 dimensional screen sees a string vibrating, I am moving this perception to valuations onto mathematical models.

I have nobody to help this way I have to push forward, knowing there will be mistakes, and that hopefully I am grasping the full scope of seeing in a abstract way.

It was the beginning of what might be called (and in fact is called) Stringy Geometry. The point is that strings are not points, and specifically, their extended nature means that in addition to being able to see the usual geometrical properties of a space that the theory like General Relativity can see, the strings can see other, intrinsically stringy, data. There is a quantity in the theory that is called the Kalb-Ramond field (or just the “B-field”) that can be used to measure how much the string can winds on or wraps a piece of the geometry, in essence. The parameter a that measures the size of a piece of the space that collapses when the geometry becomes singular, is essentially joined by another parameter, b, that sort of measures how much the strings have wound or smeared themselves on that piece of the space. The upshot is that a and b naturally combine themselves into a complex parameter that naturally describes the resolution process, solving the puzzle that the Mathematicians faced.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Although Aristotle in general had a more empirical and experimental attitude than Plato, modern science did not come into its own until Plato's Pythagorean confidence in the mathematical nature of the world returned with Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. For instance, Aristotle, relying on a theory of opposites that is now only of historical interest, rejected Plato's attempt to match the Platonic Solids with the elements -- while Plato's expectations are realized in mineralogy and crystallography, where the Platonic Solids occur naturally.Plato and Aristotle, Up and Down-Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.

This is the first introduction then that is very important to me about what is perceived as a mathematical framework. So it is not such an effort to think about our world and think hmmmm.... a mathematical abstract of our reality is there to be discovered. I first noticed this attribute in Pascal's triangle.

The sudden shrinking of Euclidean geometry to a subspecies of the vast family of mathematical theories of space shattered some illusions and prompted important changes in our the philosophical conception of human knowledge. Thus, for instance, after these nineteenth-century developments, philosophers who dream of a completely certain knowledge of right and wrong secured by logical inference from self-evident principles can no longer propose Euclidean geometry as an instance in which a similar goal has proved attainable. The present article reviews the aspects of nineteenth century geometry that are of major interest for philosophy and hints in passing, at their philosophical significance.

While I looked further into the world of Pythagorean developments I wondered how such an abstract could have ever lead to the world of non-euclidean geometries. There is this progression of the geometries that needed to be understood. It included so many people that we only now acknowledge the greatest names but it is in the exploration of "theoretical excellence" that we gain access to the spirituality's of the mathematical world.

"I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

While some would wonder what value this exploration into such mathematical abstracts, how could we describe for ourselves the ways things would appear at such levels microscopically reduced, has an elemental quality to it? Yes, I have gone to one extreme, and understand, it included so many different mathematics, how could we ever understand this effort and assign it's rightful place in history? Theoretics then, is this effort?

How Strange the elements of our world?

The crystalline state is the simplest known example of a quantum , a stable state of matter whose generic low-energy properties are determined by a higher organizing principle and nothing else.Robert Laughlin

Saturday, September 22, 2007

"I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

If I had thought there was a way to describe the "interior" of the blackhole, it would be by recognizing the dimensionality the blackhole had to offer. One had to know where to locate "this place in the natural world." If we had understood the energy values of the particle world colliding(that space and frame of reference, then what were we finding that such a place in dimensionality could exist in the natural world? Yoyu had to accept that there was dynamical moves that werre being defined as a possiility.

So what ways would allow us to do this, and this is part of the idea that came to me as I was thinking about the place where all possibilities could exist. Yet, what existed as "moduli form in the valleys" was being extended. So I am connecting other things here too.

Monday, March 19, 2007

"I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

Clifford of Asymptotia drew our attention to this for examination and gives further information and links with which to follow.

He goes on to write,"Let’s not get carried away though. Having more data does not mean that you worked harder to get it. Mapping the human genome project involves a much harder task, but the analogy is still a good one, if not taken too far."

Of course since the particular comment of mine was deleted there, and of course I am okay with that. It did not mean I could not carry on here. It did not mean that I was not speaking directly to the way these values in dimensional perspective were not being considered.

There had to be a route to follow that would lead one to think in such abstract spaces. Of course, one does not want to be divorced from reality. So one should not think that because the geometry of GR is understood, that you think nothing can come from the microseconds after the universe came into expression.

At this point in the development, although geometry provided a common framework for all the forces, there was still no way to complete the unification by combining quantum theory and general relativity. Since quantum theory deals with the very small and general relativity with the very large, many physicists feel that, for all practical purposes, there is no need to attempt such an ultimate unification. Others however disagree, arguing that physicists should never give up on this ultimate search, and for these the hunt for this final unification is the ‘holy grail’. Michael Atiyah

The Holy Grail sure comes up lots doesn't it:) Without invoking the pseudoscience that Peter Woit spoke of. I thought, if they could use Babar, and Alice then I could use the Holy Grail?

Like Peter I will have to address the "gut feelings" and the way Clifford expressed it. I do not want to practise pseudoscience as Peter is about the landscape.:)

When ones sees the constituent properties of that Gossett polytope 421 in all it's colours, the complexity of that situation is quite revealing. Might we not think in the time of supergravity, gravity will become weak, in the matter constitutions that form.

As in Neutrino mixing I am asking you to think of the particles as sound as well as think them in relation to the Colour of Gravity. If you were just to see grvaity in it's colourful design and what value that gravity in face of the photon moving within this gravitational field?

The "geometry of curvature" had to be implied in the outcome, from that quantum world? Yet at it's centre, what is realized? You had to be lead there in terms of particle research to know that you are arriving at the "crossover point." The superfluid does this for examination.

So what chance do we have, if we did not think this geometry was attached to processes that would unfold into the bucky ball or the fullerene of science. To say that the outcome had a point of view that is not popular. I do not count myself as attached to any intelligent design agenda, so I hope people will think I do not care about that.

NATHAN MYHRVOLD

I found the email debate between Smolin and Susskind to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, it mixes several issues. The Anthropic Principle (AP) gets mixed up with their other agendas. Smolin advocates his CNS, and less explicitly loop quantum gravity. Susskind is an advocate of eternal inflation and string theory. These biases are completely natural, but in the process the purported question of the value of the AP gets somewhat lost in the shuffle. I would have liked more discussion of the AP directly

So all the while you see the complexity of that circle and how long it took a computer to map it, it has gravity in it's design, whether we like to think about it or not?

But of course we are talking about the symmetry and any thing less then this would have been assign a matter state, as if symmetrical breaking would have said, this is the direction you are going is what we have of earth?

Isostatic Adjustment is Why Planets are Round?

While one thinks of "rotational values" then indeed one would have to say not any planets is formed in the way the sun does. Yet, in the "time variable understanding" of the earth, we understand why it's shape is not exactly round.

Do you think the earth and moon look round if your were considering Grace?

On the moon what gives us perspective when a crater is formed to see it's geological structure? It's just not a concern of the mining industry, as to what is mined on other orbs, but what the time variable reveals of the orbs structure as well.

It seems only the good scientist John Baez had epitomes the construction of the Platonic solids? A revision then, of the "time line of history" and the correction he himself had to make? Let's not be to arrogant to know that once we understand more and look at "the anomalies" it forces us to revise our assessments.

The Art form

I relayed this image and quote below on Clifford's site to encourage the thinking of young people into an art form that is truly amazing to me. Yes I get excited about it after having learnt of Gauss and Reimann's exceptional abilities to move into the non euclidean world.

Some think me a crackpot here? If you did not follow the history then how would you know to also include the "physics of approach," as well? Also, some might ask what use "this ability to see the visual abstraction" and I think this art form is in a way destined, to what was kept in glass cabinets and such, even while the glass cabinet in analogy is held in the brain/space of them) who have developed such artistic abilities.

It's as if you move past the layers of the evolution of the human being(brain casings) and it evolution and the field that surrounds them. Having accomplished the intellect( your equations and such), has now moved into the world of imagery. Closet to this is the emotive field which circumvents our perspective on the greater potential of the world in the amazing thought forms of imagery. This move outward, varies for each of us from time to time. Some who are focused in which ever area can move beyond them. This paragraph just written is what would be considered crackpot(I dislike that word)because of the long years of research I had gone through to arrive at this point.

Of course, those views above are different.

Mapping

Is it illusionary or delusional, and having looked at the Clebsch's Diagonal Surface below, how is it that "abstraction" written?

There is no doubt that the long road to understanding science is the prerequisite to mapping the images from an equation's signs and symbols. While not sitting in the classroom of the teachers it was necessary to try and move into the fifth dimensional referencing of our computer screen to see what is being extolled here not just in image development, but of what the physics is doing in relation.

So of course to be the historical journey was established like most things, Mandelstam current and what is happening there as an interlude, as well as helping to establish some understanding of the abstractions that had been developed.

But yes, before moving to current day imagery and abstraction, I had to understand how these developments were being tackled in today's theoretical sciences.

I was lead into this subject of Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin's book called, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity." As a lay person reading what our scientist's have to say, I have a vested interest in what can start one off and find, that changes are being made to the synopsis first written. Did I understand his position correctly from the very beginning? I'll have to go back over my notes.

But with this format now I have the opportunity to...ahem... get it..directly from the horses mouth(no disrespect intended and written based on knowing how to read horses). As I said, I tried early on to see how the situation of string theory could be refuted. I "instigated" as a comparative front for Lubos Motl and Peter Woit to speak from each of their positions. I had to disregard "the tones" set by either, as to the nature of whose what and how ignorant one might be, and comparatively, one might be to intelligent design? To get "some evidence" of why string theory might not be such a good idea?

Now I believe this is a more "civil situation" that such a format has been proposed and that Lee Smolin can speak directly. As well as, "further information" supplied to counter arguments to Lee's position.

Just a reminder about my skills. While I do things like carpetry, plumbing, electrical, I do not call myself a Carpenter, a Plumber or a Electrician. Nor shall I ah-spire to be more then I'm not, as I am to old this time around.

While the things above talked about from Jacques are served by hindsight, "the jest" follows what comes after this point.

The Jest of the Problem?

My present research concerns the problem of topology changing in string theory. It is currently believed that one has to sum over all string backgrounds and all topologies in doing the functional integral. I suspect that certain singular string backgrounds may be equivalent to topology changes, and that it is consequently only necessary to sum over string backgrounds. As a start I am investigating topology changes in two-dimensional target spaces. I am also interested in Seiberg-Witten invariants. Although much has been learned, some basic questions remain, and I hope to be able at least to understand the simpler of these questionsStanley Mandelstam-Professor Emeritus Particle Theory

Gina has asked questions in context of "academic excellence" in relation to what is being seen in relation to string theory. Of course we thank Clifford for providing the format for that discussion.

So of course, here, I am drawn to the content of his book and what is the basis of his argument from those four pages. I hope my explanation so far summarizes adequately. For the lay person, this information is leading perspective as to the basis of the argument.

Yes I think I have to wait now to see if the discussion can now move beyond the first three points raised? Hopefully Lee will respond soon?

How do you fight sociology

Because this by any of the leaders of string theory. it was left to someone like me, as a quasi "insider" who had the technical knowledge but not the sociological commitment, to take on that responsibility. And I had done so because of my own interest in string theory, which I was working on almost exclusively at the time. Nevertheless, some string theorists regarded the review as a hostile act.

The trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin, Page 281

I have discovered one of Lee Smolin's objection to a string theorist. They are only craftsman, and not seers.

A lot of times it is much easier to accept the cosmological review of the universe in such a grand scale why would we think we need something more then what is already here? What has the subject of helioseismology to do with the way Wayne Hu may look at his universe?

One of the lessons I learnt as I tried to understand how they tied together the cosmological and quantum world, was to understand that relativity only spoke to that cosmo at large, and that to think anythng more, we would have to bring quantum perspectve in line with it.

We talked lots about micro perspective and particle creation and understood that the beginning of the universe is tied directly to how we micro perceptively deal with it's origins?

You may look at the sun and then realize the dynamical nature such quantum perception reveals as this process continues to unfold for us, as long as the energy is there to support it?

Now that you have shifted your views to the "nature of the dance," I had some choreographies for you to consider.

Withn context of a complete revolution, the noting of the solar body and polarity shifts are quite natural, yet, how would you not think of these geometrical dynamcis as how we might look at the "B field" and Cayley shapes?

Just something to add to your thoughts as you concretize your views about let's say, quasars.

I like the Latin name of Sun(Sol). Plato's use of "the sun" in the analogy of the Cave?

Holding a "ideal or image" in mind "as to perfection," can be a guiding light in terms of what possibly "enlightenment" may do for society? What any one moment might do in our realization of what "truly rings the basic core of our understanding" about what we thought long and hard about.:)

A "aha" moment perhaps? A "greater depth of seeing" beyond the "shadows on the walls."

Can I tell a little story before I head into the essence of this posted thread below?

From one mechanic to another

I am not a mechanic by trade. Yet I had taken apart, and put back together motors which ran and ran well. Through a transition period, and without a place in which to do this work myself, I decided to give it to "a mechanic" to work on. Pay the price, which was well beyond my means at that time. With three children a wife, and barely making it, I asked for help financially. It was cold, and snow blowing.

After picking up my motor and installing it. Making sure everything was right, I went for a slow drive to seat my rings in newly honed out cylinders. Well, much to my dismay and lots of dollars, blue smoke clouded the world behind me.

Taking it back home, I called the mechanic, and told him what was happening. "It was something you must of done," he siad.

So, I called another mechanic. He compression tested the cylinders for me, and to my dismay and his, one of the cylinders was not up to par.

So what things did I learn?

That I could have "one mechanic go against another," for the shoddy work that was done? No, it doesn't work that way.

After tearing off the head, I had found they had broken the oil and compression rings, as they pushed the compressed rings and piston, back into the cylinder. They had cracked them while doing this. The cracked ring gouged the cylinder wall, as it went up and down on the crankshaft.

Were there things I might have done different now? Maybe pressure tested the cylinders before hand?

Anyway, on to the subject of this post.

After doing my research and investigations into how the standard model itself might have been displayed, I selected two events, that were very discriptive of what might have happened, when taken as a whole story of the science in progress.

These were censored by Peter Woit on his site and removed. These lead to questions that might have implicated "string theory" as part of the process of inquiry beyond the standard? See Icecube.

If one holds to the idea that they had assumed a counter position to currents trends, then would it not include the theoretical approach well understood, that it also attached, not just a geometrical association, but one described in the physics process as well?

More and more, it had weighted heavily on my mind, that the consistancy through which selected comments were shown, were to hold validation processes as to anti-string theory. As tones of select comments, as very disconcerting to me, but through his awareness Peter did strived to referee.

The overall message, was not one with the care which Cosmic Variance had ascertained it's caution of String evangelistism, or Lubos Motl's declaration as well, that the underlying motivation, was more to provide a "general widesweping statement" that applied to the string model development as a whole.

IMpressional MindsIf as a student, having now moved toward my senior years, how could I have turned back the clock of time, that I might have stood beside any of these leaders of science?

That I had to accustom myself to the very level on which my opinion would not have mattered coming from layman status. So being on the bottom of the totem pole, I accept the resolve to which such treatment was dealt. It was a small price to pay.

So imagine then, what the overall message by Peter has done to those prospective entries into the world of, might now have said, why should we now enter, being the brunt of what good science men hate, would have us believe?

The Reductionistic ProcessIs it incorrect to say that the events of the collision process are incapable of decribing all fawcetts of the standard model?

So by concentrating on the collision process itself, what factors would have said that no, the standard model does not fit the current processes in LHC? Does not fit the process in high energy collision process to earths atmospheric conditions, for evdience of? See Pierre Auger expeirments here. See John Bachall and the Ghost particle.

So by closely looking at the poor man's version, what process would lead one to believe that the standard model was inclusive in this interactive process as well?

Here's the post in full. It was in response to Jack Safartti's comments and the document in which he had wrote was in contradiction of what I had learnt of the "possible new physics?" THis is of course held within context of collider results and the micro perspective results, created the form of quark Gluon Plasma. A superfluid?

If one follows the logic development, Jack's position becomes a interesting one to question. As well, such thoughts about cosmic collisions, and the high energy particles cosmological events. Microstate blackhole processes are the poor man's experimental pallete. Just as valid the dissipative state created in the collider.

The resulting end product is what is being explore with ICECUBE. It is all consistent with the standard model. Right from, the start of the collision process, to the resulting shower created.

Jack has some explaining to do?

Update

(To help anonymous understand better I hope the student does not feel s/he has to learn string theory in order to be valid in existance. Also, the interactive shower from the collison process with high energy article is well understood and what comes from it.

He deletes yours too.! Oh look, what we have in common?:) What drivel have you drummmed up?)

Anyway. As I was saying.

This is not to slight Peter Woit in the slighest, but to move him to consider the enormity with which the process of string/M theory is involved in the standard model expression. As fundamental particles and the interactions thereof.

To reject the model on the basis of preference, is of course for any who choose to follow which road. But to say that such a process should not be followed would have been a erroneous statement, as well as influencing the general population by such ascertions of preference aghast and in reaction.

Of course I recognized it is his blog and his comment section. On the basis of his dislike for anyone, can do anything they like, within reason right?

Friday, December 30, 2005

So what instigated my topic today and Hypercharge make sits way for me to reconsider, so while doing this the idea of geoemtries and th eway in which we see this uiverse held to the nature of it's origination are moving me to consider how we see in ths geometrical sense.

This paragraph above should orientate perception for us a bit around methods used to see in ways that we had not seen before. This is always very fascinating to me. What you see below for mind bending, helps one to orientate these same views on a surface.

Hw would you translate point on a two dimensional surface to such features on the items of interest on these models proposed?

Part of my efforts at comprehension require imaging that will help push perspective. In this way, better insight to such claims and model methods used, to create insight into how we might see those extra 10 dimensions, fold into the four we know and love.

If one held such views from the expansitory revelation, that our universe implies at these subtle levels a quantum nature, then how well has our eyes focused not only on the larger issues cosmology plays, but also, on how little things become part and parcel of this wider view? That the quantum natures are very spread, out as ths expansion takes place, they collpase to comsic string models or a sinstantaneous lightning strikes across thei universe from bubbles states that arose from what?

So knowing that such features of "spherical relation" extended beyond the normal coordinates, and seeing this whole issue contained within a larger sphere of influence(our universe), gives meaning to the dynamical nature of what was once of value, as it arose from a supersymmetrical valuation from the origination of this universe? If Any symmetry breaking unfolds, how shall we see in context of spheres and rotations within this larger sphere, when we see how the dynamcial propertties of bubbles become one of the universes as it is today? Genus figures that arise in a geometrodynamcial sense? What are these dynacis within context of the sphere?

So as I demonstrate the ways in which our vision is being prep for thinking, in relation to the models held in contrast to the nature of our universe, how are we seeing, if we are moving them to compact states of existance, all the while we are speaking to the very valuation of the origination of this same universe?